BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Greetings fellow EB'ers! I've uploaded my updated edu, projectiles folder, and change log below. Feedback appreciated and desirable!

Please note: Change log is not 100% up to date. Some edits are there that are not accounted for. Also note, the change log does not show all the stamina changes, etc. Also the ownership in the edu is all messy because it is currently in use for my SP campaign.

Changelog: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?zpooyeq39v3n8w2

Updated edu: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?1776tx2jq88d772

Updated projectiles: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?iga1sr1uxngswpi

[-Stormrage-]

Greetings fellow EB'ers! I've uploaded my updated edu, projectiles folder, and change log below. Feedback appreciated and desirable!

Please note: Change log is not 100% up to date. Some edits are there that are not accounted for. Also note, the change log does not show all the stamina changes, etc. Also the ownership in the edu is all messy because it is currently in use for my SP campaign.

Changelog: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?zpooyeq39v3n8w2

Updated edu: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?1776tx2jq88d772

Updated projectiles: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?iga1sr1uxngswpi

Good job , I especially like the bringing back of AP kopis. I think it adds more use of tactics in the game, should i use AP kopis or Hard-hitting Longsword, etc.

I also thought that giving poor morale to heavy units was a nice touch. Hopefully we can see some clear distinctions in stamina between light and heavy units, because right now, no one cares if his heavies are exhausted, as long as they got that armor on'em ^^ .

Generals should have to be careful where they commit their men, and for how long. The Roman tactic of attack then retreat-to-rest- should be an observably effective strategy to use.

[The Celtic Viking]

Just two quick things for now:

1) "37. Sotaroas: -5 base men, -70 cost Too much Celtic archer spam, really ahistorical"

I really wonder about this, because I have never seen any Celtic archer spam. The reason why Celts bring more archers than is historical is the same reason why all western factions bring too many archers in general. In RTW, archers simply don't work the same way as they did historically. Nerfing them specifically for the Celts and Germanics for that reason is just unfair.

Oh! I almost forgot. Why wouldn't you make them (and the Germanic archers) into spearmen-with-bows like you did with eastern archer-spearmen?

2) "151. Cohortes Evocata: +1 shield Roman scutum covers more of the body than a theuros. Also units have relatively
low defense skill values for sword units. I think the +1 shield is appropriate."

The Cohortes Evocata are already OP as they are, giving them a free +1 shield defence is absolutely unthinkable. As for their "low defence skill", they've got more than Neitos and the same as Arjos...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Just two quick things for now:

1) "37. Sotaroas: -5 base men, -70 cost Too much Celtic archer spam, really ahistorical"

I really wonder about this, because I have never seen any Celtic archer spam. The reason why Celts bring more archers than is historical is the same reason why all western factions bring too many archers in general. In RTW, archers simply don't work the same way as they did historically. Nerfing them specifically for the Celts and Germanics for that reason is just unfair.

Oh! I almost forgot. Why wouldn't you make them (and the Germanic archers) into spearmen-with-bows like you did with eastern archer-spearmen?

2) "151. Cohortes Evocata: +1 shield Roman scutum covers more of the body than a theuros. Also units have relatively
low defense skill values for sword units. I think the +1 shield is appropriate."

The Cohortes Evocata are already OP as they are, giving them a free +1 shield defence is absolutely unthinkable. As for their "low defence skill", they've got more than Neitos and the same as Arjos...

It seemed wrong to me that Celtic/Germanic archer units had more men per unit than steppe foot units. Also the ranged advantage of many eastern factions was diluted by the fact that 90 man Celtic archer units could absorb the majority of their arrows. It may be a good idea to give them fewer arrows and stronger melee capabilities akin to the eastern archer-spearmen units though. This is definitely something that I would consider and, dare I say, lean towards. Maybe 12-15 arrows with 8-9 morale and better melee stats? That way they wouldn't have to suffer through a price bump and would still be able to fight off some weakened or tired light cavalry units.

As for the Cohortes Evocata, you are really pointing out the only Roman infantry unit I would consider overpowered for their price. The Roman scutum having a smaller value than the aspis is something I think of as an oversight rather than a price point issue. Also, they are in the tier which I would consider veteran heavy infantry, where they have little company, possibly only the Iberian Assaults. Shortsword units in general have higher defense skills than longsword units, as well they should considering the gladius is a quicker weapon that leaves the user exposed far less than a longsword when used intelligently in tandem with a larger shield, as a highly trained and veteran unit such as Evocata would be wont to use them. I should also point out that for pure gameplay reasons, the Evocata unit is one of the only advantages the post-Marian era gives to a Roman player. That all being said, I would agree with a small bump to cost for the +1 shield value, perhaps +50 or so since this was already an effective unit. My reasoning was meant more for most other Roman infantry units, it just so happened that I typed the reasoning in for the lone Roman infantry unit that had a very high defense skill.

[The Celtic Viking]

It seemed wrong to me that Celtic/Germanic archer units had more men per unit than steppe foot units. Also the ranged advantage of many eastern factions was diluted by the fact that 90 man Celtic archer units could absorb the majority of their arrows.

A steppe player who's an ounce smarter than the AI will still win 100% of the times against Celts or Germanics anyway; it certainly won't come down to the awesome effectiveness of the mighty sotaroas.

It may be a good idea to give them fewer arrows and stronger melee capabilities akin to the eastern archer-spearmen units though. This is definitely something that I would consider and, dare I say, lean towards. Maybe 12-15 arrows with 8-9 morale and better melee stats? That way they wouldn't have to suffer through a price bump and would still be able to fight off some weakened or tired light cavalry units.

Make that 10 morale (+4 like you did with the Arabs) and that change (with none else) would be fine by me

As for the Cohortes Evocata, you are really pointing out the only Roman infantry unit I would consider overpowered for their price.

I agree. Still OP, though.

The Roman scutum having a smaller value than the aspis is something I think of as an oversight rather than a price point issue.

No, I think that's rather because the highest shield value given out in vanilla EB stats is 4, with 5 reserved for phalangites (which is gone in gamegeek's EDU). The reason why you see the aspis with 5 is because it's carried by shieldwall units, who got +1 shield value but -1 def skill to compensate. He has also given light infantry units +1 shield which is why you can see such oddities.

Also, they are in the tier which I would consider veteran heavy infantry, where they have little company, possibly only the Iberian Assaults. Shortsword units in general have higher defense skills than longsword units, as well they should considering the gladius is a quicker weapon that leaves the user exposed far less than a longsword when used intelligently in tandem with a larger shield, as a highly trained and veteran unit such as Evocata would be wont to use them. I should also point out that for pure gameplay reasons, the Evocata unit is one of the only advantages the post-Marian era gives to a Roman player. That all being said, I would agree with a small bump to cost for the +1 shield value, perhaps +50 or so since this was already an effective unit. My reasoning was meant more for most other Roman infantry units, it just so happened that I typed the reasoning in for the lone Roman infantry unit that had a very high defense skill.

I see. Still, defence skill also includes things like dodging, which a big, cumbersome shield and heavy armour doesn't allow for as much as, say, a Bagaudas could. I don't think there was anything wrong with its def skill as it was.

As for your point about them being "one of the only advantages", well, yeah... but that's like saying, regarding ice hockey, "the only advantage with a powerplay is that you outnumber the opponent". You get cheap, massed heavily armoured infantry, good quality cavalry, you've still got good mercenary archers and the extra merc slots to slip them in... how many advantages do you need? If what you mean is that the better-quality-lesser-numbers modification makes Marian infantry inferior compared to imperials (something I disagree with), then it would be much better to go back to how it was before we made that change. It's better that we recognize that a flavour change failed and trash it than perpetually improve the Romans because one of their gazillion reforms turns out superior to the rest...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'll agree on this. The general increase to good stamina for all heavy infantry is really what hurt the Romans most. Prior to that, it was really only elites, Roman legionary units, and a select other few heavy infantries that had good stamina. I suppose in that sense the stamina edits help them more since I've reverted to those stats. That being said, most Roman infantry only has +1 defense skill over hoplite units which means they were equal prior to the shieldwall bonus. True the scutum is cumbersome, but to only have a +1 value over a buckler is silly, is it not? Its very nearly a full body shield, exposing the shins and head only. Plus, armor values on legions really aren't that high. Compare with Theurophoroi for example. The +2 for a pair of greaves more than makes up for the fact that chain mail is rated higher than linothorax. Romans do get good auxiliaries but to compare Roman native heavy infantry currently with Gallic, Iberian, Carthaginian, or Hellenic and you will find the Roman units wanting. I found it odd that Roman cavalry was actually more effective cost-wise than Roman infantry, something that I wanted to change by pricing the cav up slightly (along with a small morale plus) and making the infantry a little better.